You don't understand why people hate being paid less than someone else for the same work? Guess Upton Sinclair was correct that it's difficult to get someone to understand something when their paycheck depends on them not understanding it.
There are situations where two people of equal ability and output are worth differing amounts to the company. If you're in a vastly different time zone that makes work coordination difficult or the company has reason to need in-person collaboration, paying someone more to conform to those location constraints make sense as those people are more valuable to the company. But thinking a company should pay a remote worker who chooses to live in a high rent area more than a person who doesn't even though both have equal value to the company isn't logical. In the end, the people in the low rent areas will be picked off by competitors who see their value rather than their location.
I don't understand the parental model of employment that seems to be all the rage these days. Employees aren't the company's children and the company aren't the employees' parents. It's weird how often people bring their personal choices and needs into the compensation discussion and often elevate it into a moral issue. If you have six babies you don't deserve to get paid more for the same work as someone who is childless but that seems to be a common way of thinking now.
Like they say: "In the end, average temperature in the hospital is approaching room temperature."
For arbitrage to be entirely fair, if a company can easily hire from 2 places, workers should be able to move between those places just as easily. So subunits of the same country if fair game, but countries must not be, unless both countries have effectively open borders with each other.
